I've cooked up a bunch of SR5 house rules, but because of its relative youth I haven't playtested extensively. I want feedback on them, fire away. The purpose of each rule is embedded in the description of it, but feel free to post asking for more clarification: I'm very sensitive to the argument that you should never make a rule without have a clearly defined reason for it to be there.

The first batch of rules is an attempt to make the new matrix make more sense. The last set is mechanical tweaks.

I'll be running play test next Sunday, so I'll report back on how they go to see how much of the discussion here lines up with experimental results.

Why is everything online all the time:

Code from crash 1.0 and 2.0 runs rampant in the matrix all the time, and it is so virulent that it can even reach off-matrix stuff. (For instance, by modulating the current draw in devices attached to the wall to send nasty radio waves at unwatched devices). It is much better to be online and actively talking to GOD, which monitors this intensely destructive code and pushes anti-viruses, than to go it alone.

This is only a fluff change, but it means my head doesn't spin as hard when trying to justify street sams exposing their nervous system to roving script kiddies. It also sets up a lovely piece of corollary fluff: all attack programs in decks are just barely contained chunks of dissonant/crash code. Decks are so big because it's dangerous to put the infected chip physically near the rest of the circuitry on the deck for fear of the virulent attack vectors discussed in the first paragraph.

Bricking:

Bricking represents rooting a device in such a serious way that you get to rewrite firmware. So it is still compromised, no matter how many reboots you throw at it, until you can give it a hard reset ... (which usually involves strapping unusual voltages directly to the device; hence the hardware test). However, modern anti-viruses are good enough to quarantine a bricked device, forcing it to shut off all but "safety critical" functionality lest the rest of your network be compromised. Mostly a fluff change, but salient in that it makes the world somewhat more consistent (no sparks) and serves as a guiding principle in weird bricking cases.

For instance, applying it to the example of hacked cybereyes (which is being debated in the other house rule thread), network security would shut off all data communication from the eye to other cyberware and the central nervous system for fear of poisoned data or lethal bio-feedback. However, it would give the user warning and allow them to override the blinding shutdown. If they did so, I'd negate all noise penalties for the attacking hacker and throw them a few bonus dice to attack whatever is next on their agenda.

Decks:

Decks are 1/10th the price. Cyberprograms and Agents are 10x the price.

May tweak the ratio here, but I want to justify more decks in the world -- because hacker gangs are cool -- and force deckers to be more different from one another. It prevents decking from being the domain of only nasty corporate strike teams by lowering the hundreds-of-thousand dollar barrier.

This increase in price flies in the face of verisimilitude given the wide spread ability to find free software or evade copy protection in RL. Doubly so since encryption effectively doesn't exist in SR. However, I'm willing to swallow my disbelief on that front.

Commlinks

Reduce the device rating of all commlinks by 2. Yes, that means that hacking Meta Links gives a bonus to the attacker.

I'm making the change because my experience is that they're way too good as matrix armor against all but the most optimized attackers. I want to threaten the PCs with hacking more often and have them really dependent on the decker for matrix defense. I want to do this because I like the new hacking rules and the role it creates for the decker, but previous playtests have suggested that commlinks are too cheap and effective of a fix to enemy hacking. Numerical details of my experience are available if this proves contentious.

Access Control Virtualization:

Hosts can be "virtually" partitioned to specify which devices share marks when they're compromised. Any devices / files which share information must necessarily share marks. However, this means that one host can hold your security equipment and your research data without worrying that a hacker nailing the outermost security camera will get access to the latest schematics.

What's to stop every security device from being on a different access control list causing the hacker endless grief? I'm considering a few rules here -- maximum number of "virtual partitions" equal to host rating, and IC and spiders need to take a change grid action to switch between virtual partitions. (Hackers, by the way, can't switch to a new partition until they have a mark on it, which necessitates wireless contact with a device in the new partition). I might make up some rules whereby enterprising hackers can reroute the IC as it makes these change grid actions too.

This is kind of a fluff change: you can get the same effect by having multiple hosts at the same physical site. But it makes me rest easier as a GM because there's no way any reasonable engineer would build hosts that conform to RAW and it makes hosts more affordable.

Any rate, this one isn't super well thought out yet. I'm very curious for feedback on it.

Hacking Privileges:

Modifying the edit file action. 1 mark allows you to list files/controls/interesting stuff on whatever you've hacked. 2 marks allows you to read. 3 marks allows you to write. 1 mark seemed way too low for datasteals / tricky espionage runs.

This one is only lightly tested and I might go back the other way on it.

Spoofed Illegal Items:

The whole deal with the new matrix is that everything needs to be online all the time because GOD says so. It makes sense that GOD would obviously converge on any unlicensed guns that declared themselves to the matrix. So I rule that it is incredibly easy to fool anyone outside of 100m about what exactly a device is. GOD won't be nearly as interested in converging on your unlicensed electric toothbrush.

Free Device Listing Within 100m

Conversely, if you're inside of 100m, you get a free list of exactly what every node is. (From a combination of RF signal profiling, some low grad THz imaging the deck throws out and other context cues.) This reduces the drag of matrix perception tests on matrix combat, which is dull as hell and reminiscent of the terribly boring "scan for hidden nodes" mechanic in SR4. Giving hackers extra actions encourages them to stay in AR (and thus engaged with the real world) and, generally, speeds up fights.

This also prevents players from using an infinite swarm of wireless devices as hacking defense: Buying a lot of wireless toothbrushes to force hackers to guess which needle in the haystack is the gun.

Knowledge Skills:

(Int+Log) x 3, and I might go higher with that. I love knowledge skills and no one is ever going to buy them in play (unless forced by GM or an exceptional player). May well give people a good number to start with.

I don't have a rule for this, but I'm still a little weirded out by the fact that there's a split between knowledge skills and active skills at all. It seems like a recipe for making them second class citizens to codify that they are in the character creation rules. Also, "knowledge" is a pretty loose term: electronic warfare and chemistry being classed as active really suggests to me that "knowledge skills" mostly translate as: "less useful skills we don't have explicit rules for." This was worse in previous editions (SR3) where adept centering could key off of your flute-playing knowledge skill.

Overflow Damage:

Increases every body combat turns, not minutes. I like a real risk of bleeding out during a fight.

Scramble Interrupt Action:

-10 initiative and you move agility meters and may drop prone. Designed to resolve the insta-death grenade rules loophole by allowing you to flee to cover. I'm hoping it keeps my PCs more involved in combat so they can scramble if the dynamics of the fight expose their particular person to trouble.

Interrupt Action Availability:

You can interrupt as long as you currently have a positive initiative value. If your initiative is 2, then a full parry is still allowed.

I like interrupt actions and want more of them. They keep the PCs involved in the game and make combat rounds shorter.

Surprise:

All combatants make a reaction+intuition test at the occurrence of a surprise, the surprising combatant does this too. Anyone who scores fewer hits than the surprising combatant may not act against him and is considered surprised by the surprising combatant. Anyone who is aware of the surprising combatant before the surprise is exempt from this test, this goes for the surpriser as well: ambushes automatically succeed.

I don't like the new rules: R+I (3) is a really low threshold and reduces the number of effective surprises. Very hard to set an ambush under these circumstances. The initiative penalty doesn't sit well with me either -- consider the situation where a 3rd party entering a running battle is the surprise, should surprised characters lose their turn or just still be focused on what they were doing before? I prefer that characters keep their actions whenver possible, so I'd rather let them keep their initiative roll.

Testing is light on the ground here. If people have experience with this particular rule, I'd like to hear it.

Friends in melee:

Use the SR4 rules (or what I recall of them, which may already have been a house rule: -1 die pool to defender and +1 die to attacks for every friend you have in melee).

I really don't like the added rolling complexity of "passing the setup dice" and I don't think it adds much strategic depth. (I respect that the designers were trying to make teamwork test rules consistent, but I think it's a poor mechanical choice. Besides, melee isn't quite a team sport in the same way whiteboarding during a B&R test is.) Also, I think the current rules make it more palatable to be in melee with multiple people, which I really don't like. Melee with more than one person should be incredibly dangerous, mostly because I occasionally want the players to be overrun by mobs of starving ghouls which aren't necessarily highly skilled.

Layered Armor:

There's currently an armor loophole that allows you to get infinite armor capacity by stacking different layers of armor with different elemental protections. Fix it by applying a -1 modifier to all agility and reaction tests for each layer of armor beyond the first. (This ignores +armor items, and probably FFBA though I hate that stuff.)

Armor values:

Halve all armor values (round up) in the clothing and armor table. Previous playtests indicated damage accrued more slowly than I'd like (3-4 damage per caught bullet rather than 5-6). I want more damage to keep combat fast and players incentivised to handle it with care. I also want to reduce the really ludicrous numbers of dice you need to keep track of for defense rolls.

Adding another:

Sustained Spells and Reagents:

Sustained spells can't have their limit raised by reagents or by edge. To prevent abuses like attribute boosting / imcreased initiative in F1 sustaining foci off of reagents.

EDIT: As suggested by Lurker37, changing this to

Sustaining Foci

A sustaining focus can only sustain spells whose force or hits (whichever is higher) are less than focus' force.

You want to increase creatibility by reducing the free points? It is Cha x3 by RAW.

I had totally missed that. Good catch, I'll back edit it out of my initial list; Chax3 makes me pretty happy.

I still don't think it's nearly enough. Same with knowledge skills.

I think you hit the nail on the head in your first post about why knowledge skills are separated out. I can't remember which edition or ruleset had them all together but when faced between picking a skill that actually does something vs ones that 1/2 the time never get used and are there solely for character crafting people would tend to never take them, or under-take them.

If they're from a pool that have to be spent on knowledge skills then people are more likely to use them.

I was actually considering doing the opposite:

Sustaining Foci can sustain a spell with a force or net hits (whichever is higher) no higher than their rating.

how is that the opposite?

and in any event, that still leaves you with the problem of focused concentration. and with mystic adepts who can eventually center away the penalty they get from sustaining those difficult spells.

I think Lurker37 is suggesting that the problem lies with sustaining foci, and not with reagents -- kind of an opposite view to the one I implicitly took in making my rule.

Lurker, I think I like your version better. Going to back edit to reflect it.

Jaid, 100% agreed that focused concentration is still a problem, as are mystic adepts. There's a relatively easy fix to both of those problems:

--
Focused Concentration and Mystic Adepts

Are banned because they're a bit game breaking and don't add much to game play; what concept do these qualities enable?
--

If we don't want to take the easy way out, we could consider fixing focused concentration by having it apply only to non-health spells. We could fix mystic adepts by forcing them to split starting magic points between adept powers and magic attribute.

My group is still pretty young, so I don't think they'll complain too mightily about the ban. As with the rest of the post, I'm curious how dumshock feels.

I agree that knowledge skills are the red-headed stepchild of this system. I was just reflecting after reading your post, "under what circumstances would a character spend karma to raise a knowledge skill during a game?" and had a hard time coming up with any good examples, when those same karma could be used to make them better at their active skills instead. So what are the point of knowledge skills?

I tend to think of them as a way to personify the character's background; where did this shadowrunner come from?

That said, it would seem an awful lot of shadowrunners come from.... being shadowrunners. I can't even think the number of shadowrunners I've seen over the years with "Seattle Street Gangs, Security Procedures, Organized Crime" as their knowledge skills, with a few "interests" thrown it at the player's whim.

I may start a thread whereby I come up with realistic "backgrounds" of shadowrunners, then put together their skills so people can draw on them for characters going forward, i.e.

Ex Cop
Lone Star Procedures
Area Knowledge
Local Snitches
Organized Crime

Ork Political Activist
Ork Underground
UCAS Politics
Political Science
Demolitions Background

etc.

Hmmm... Current Game I am in for my Occult Investigator.

Just raised my Knowledge Skills:
Ancient History (Asian Cultures) Skill to a 3 (Professional Level)
Middle Ages History (The Crusades) Skill to a 3 (Professional Level)
And I also added some Knowledge Skills (Languages) as well.

Anecdotal, I am sure, but I use Knowledge skills to represent, you know, Knowledge. Things that he either does or knows which cannot be duplicated with Active Skills. Part of that whole "Complete" character concept theory.

I think it's fair to say you're playing in a somewhat atypical campaign, at least compared to other DSers.

-DrZ

in the selection of these particular skills, quite probably,

but in ALL the games I have played and GM'ed, knowledge skills form a massive part of the character development.

it's all well and good being able to shoot gangers, but picking which gangers to shoot from a selection of three tribes * ... can be the difference between a good day and ... not !

I'm all for getting more non-active skills at creation

*tossing in a HE Grenade and letting them sort it out is AN answer, but not THE answer

Fair to say, to be sure, but the point stands.

Knowledge Skills SHOULD have a huge impact on game play. Knowledge skills are what set one apart from one's peers. They are often a determining factor in what types of Jobs one can obtain (or at least should be). I am far more likely to hire someone with specialized knowledge in Ghosts and Ancient Curses for a job that deals with such things, than I am to hire the guy who just does not care about anything more than a payday, all other things being equal.

I am not so sure about focues concentration. It seems like an badly balanced you must take perk... But that always begs the question if it was just overlooked or if it is there for a reason, and you should take it.
If they did not fix the wording of centering on the other hand......
The idea that mages can have one spell active without penalty sounds not that bad to me in general....I think it just needs some limits, like max force:= essence or something like that...

One possible houserule for knowledge skills is that raising active skills also raises knowledge skills by some amount - the idea being that in training to get better at something, you'll also learn more about it. Hell, maybe any Karma expenditure would get you Knowledge skills in some way connected to the thing you spent Karma on - this would mean characters would have a lot of knowledge skills in their domain as they progressed, sure, but that seems about right to me.

You have to keep it a bid smaler than that. For example every point an active skill is raised gets you 2 points of Karma to spend in appropriated knowledge skills.
(Which makes a lot of sense if you think of it. If you start learning how to shoot you will pick up a lot on the sideway about history of guns, types of guns and so on. But if you are trying to compete for olympia for example your training won't give you a lot more knowledge on the side because the easy basics you could pick up you allready know and shooting at the same targets hundreds of times in order to get better won't make you "see" much more)

On the other hand, in that kind of training you'll pick up a lot of stuff related to bullet drop, compensating for wind, and competition strategy.

@RHat
You still pick up, but the speed is much, much slower. Is like this with practically anything. Pick up a new hobby and you learn a thousand new things about related stuff in the first month. But if you stay with your hobby for a while and the ratio just droppes.
Going for the 100. time to the same golf club to improve your play is not going to give you something new. But in the first weeks....
You just start to hear a lot of stuff you know already.
Same with swimming, martial arts, biking etc. If you have learned the basics about bikes and how to repair them, well you will stay with it. Sure you learn always something new but it is just on fewer occations.

If you really want Knowledge skills to be useful, you should give more concrete rules for how and when they apply and the type of benefits that can grant. I feel like knowledge skills are usually just thrown in as an afterthought in game design and never defined enough to know exactly how you are supposed to use them. Currently, it seems like knowledge skills are entirely up to GM's and so their usefulness varies widely. They, can be used for leg work and planning a run to learn important things (though this too can be largely up to the GM, if I can't use my matrix security knowledge to get some insight into what sort of security a matrix site has, what do I use short of hacking it? Not that I'm bitter. ), but I would also suggest a mechanic for including them as a bonus in bigger rolls. I would want it to be especially important for social interactions and technological/situational rolls.

Something like:
An applicable knowledge skill (just the skill, no +logic/intuition) can be rolled to grant a number of bonus dice to another roll equal to the hits.
Glitch- ?
Critical Glitch- You completely confused yourself mixing up something you saw on the trid for actual knowledge, increase the threshold by 1 or add +2 to the opposing roll.

Probably needs some tweaking, but we use something similar for teamwork tests and it works great.

Examples:
You could use your knowledge of local bars to gain a bonus for your negotiation with the Johnson if you get to pick the bar or a bonus for your etiquette if she picks the place.

You could use your knowledge of tactics to gain a bonus on your initiative when you set up an ambush.

Your awaken critters knowledge gives you a bonus to treat that devil rat bite.

Knowledge of electronics manufacturers could give a bonus on repairing a device or reduce the time to track down an electronics item you use.

Knowledge surveillance systems gives you a bonus on stealth to avoid surveillance systems or on a hacking test to steal the surveillance feed.



If any authors are reading, a book called Street Wise that was nothing but a long list of appropriate knowledge skills and rules for using them would be something I would buy.

And given that it takes longer and more Karma to improve that skill in the first place, I'd argue that would be sufficiently modeled.

And thats what I was using to do it, so I guess we do not disagree.
For every increase of one point in an action skill you get 2 Points of free karma for related knowledge skills. The higher the skills, the slower the increase in knowledge per karma spend in the action skill.